Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tributaries of Mahanoy Creek/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of tributaries of Mahanoy Creek edit

List of tributaries of Mahanoy Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my fourth featured list nomination; it's yet another tributary list. This one is about the tributaries of Mahanoy Creek, a 51-mile-long tributary of the Susquehanna River in Schuylkill and Northumberland Counties, Pennsylvania. Mahanoy Creek is impacted by abandoned mine drainage in its upper reaches, as are some of its tributaries. This list hopefully covers all the significant aspects of the tributaries, and most of the streams have pictures (and, as usual, all have articles). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Colonel Wilhelm Klink

The information in this article is accurate; I've checked it against your sources, which are all reliable enough to negate the need for further verification. To further determine whether this list meets featured list criteria, I compared it to the List of tributaries of Shamokin Creek, which is already FL, and with the official featured list criteria. In doing so, I've made the following observations:

  • The prose of your article, though not extensive, is sufficient for a featured list in terms of grammar, terminology, and style.
  • The article's lead has wide enough scope, although the information is a bit outdated (it's mostly from 2001). If this is because the conditions discussed have and will be stable for the long term, this is okay; nevertheless, I would suggest some updating, if not from recent (e.g. 2015) sources, than at least from newer (e.g. 2007) sources.
  • This article is comprehensive enough for its topic. It contains all of the relevant information necessary for someone to gain a good understanding of the subject, does not extensively duplicate information from another article (as far as I know), and, overall, satisfies the standards set by other featured lists and set guidelines.
  • This article has a logical and organized structure. All sorting mechanisms work properly.
  • The style of this article meets the standards of WP:STYLE. However, there is a problem with the lack of images in this article (which is really the only major problem I've found). To compare to the other featured lists of tributaries, every item listed should be accompanied with an image. While some such featured lists don't include such extensive use of images, it certainly does help the quality of the article. If anything, consider adding images only for the two main tributaries of Mahanoy Creek (in the first table), since these seem of greater importance to the subject.
  • This page is stable, and has never been subjected to edit warring.

In conclusion, this list sufficiently fulfills the criteria which a featured list is required to fulfill. As it is now, I would support its promotion to featured status; in the instance of the suggested improvements being made (along with any other that I missed), I would change this position to strongly support. Good work, good luck, and farewell. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 19:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. If data from more recent years actually existed, I'd use it, but it's this or Operation Scarlift data from the 1970s. Studies of minor creeks like this one aren't repeated on a regular basis, if at all. Also, more than half of the tributaries actually do have pictures already. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my third tributary list to review, and it looks to have maintained the same structure so should be an easy review:

  • Should have a source for " not affected by mining." I suspect the source at the end is the same, and this is fine, it's two different concepts.
  • Yes, the source at the end of the paragraph supports the whole paragraph.
  • "(0 cubic feet per second (0 m3/s))" can be replaced with 0 discharge (no need for conversion). Perhaps an explanation is in order for this strange number?
  • Fixed.
  • Better, but why is there a tributary without any water?
  • That makes sense... but that should be included in the prose and readers shouldn't have to open up the article to see why there is 0 runoff... I think just calling it an ephemeral stream is enough (Or is it an Intermittent stream)?
  • pH is a huge range, any explanation for that in the source?
  • Well, some tributaries are affected by mining (hence the low pHs), and some aren't. It's still relatively unusual to have an alkaline stream (at least in northeast PA), probably due to acid deposition, but not unheard of.
  • Can this be added, with info from the source? Something like "most tributaries are acidic, ranging from x-x, due to ..."
  • Added a sentence to that effect.
  • I rewrote the last sentence, what do you think of the change?
  • Pretty good, though I tweaked it a bit.
  • Important: Need to briefly describe the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, specifically is 10 good? or bad?
  • A lower score is better; I changed the text to reflect it.
  • I just checked the source and it appears higher the better. Specifically Hilsenhoff indicates that a score of 3-9 means "microinvertebrates present) and 10-24 indicate that microinvertibrates are common. I think those terms should be used with the score in brackets as the number itself is not very meaningful.
  • That's actually, a different scale; unlike the HBI, those numbers refer to the actual number of macroinvertebrate individuals there are. The chart on page 33 labels anything under 4 as "excellent" and anything over 7 as "very poor".
  • Can you use those terms? Excellent (4) and Very poor (7)? I think they are more useful than numbers without context.
  • Done.
  • You say Only Mahanoy Creek that was found to contain fish, but later say Schwaben Creek are stocked with trout... do you mean "naturally" contain fish?
  • Actually, the text says In 2001, Schwaben Creek was the only named tributary of Mahanoy Creek that was found to contain fish, so no contradiction.
  • Why is there no elevation for Shenandoah Creek or Kehly Run?
  • There's something strange going on with those two creeks in the USGS database. The National Map shows Kehly Run reaching its confluence with Shenandoah Creek near the Number Four Reservoir, but Kehly Run's official coordinates are a mile to the south (and on a nearby hill for some reason). I have no idea where Kehly is supposed to end and Shenandoah is supposed to start; thus I don't know the mouth elevation for Kehly or the source elevation for Shenandoah.
  • Can you include a Map all coordinates link as in the Bowman Tributaries? Otherwise the coordinates in the table are not overly useful.
  • Done.

Great list! I look forward to supporting it after these minor issues are addressed. Mattximus (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Thanks for another great review! I've responded to your comments. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most changes are good, I made a few comments on the remaining ones. Mattximus (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looks like 3 more concerns and then it's a support. Mattximus (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All concerns addressed, nice article! (Pending fixes to sources below) Mattximus (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11-entry list that I doubt passes wp:GNG. Keep up the low bar. Nergaal (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • wp:GNG depends almost exclusively on sources. This article has several good sources, so by wp:GNG definition it's notable. There is no featured list requirement that says it must be greater than 11 entries either. Mattximus (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nergaal, if you believe a nominated list does not meet the GNG, then please take it to AfD. Passive-aggressive comments on the nomination are not at all helpful to anyone- they have no effect but slightly annoying a few people, and if that was your aim then you need to have new aims. As far as the length- 11 is short, but the unofficial minimum is 10 items. --PresN 20:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend a topic ban should this kind of behaviour continue. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Third paragraph has a repeated "ranged from" in the middle.
  • The "with a lower value being ideal" part is an example of a "noun plus -ing" sentence structure, which can be improved upon. A little tweak will lead to a better-flowing sentence here.
  • In the last table, the Images column shouldn't be sortable.
    • I still see this one. It's the Tributaries of Shenandoah Creek table where this exists, in case that helps. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 5 needs an access date, in addition to the archival date that is already there. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Thanks a lot of the feedback, it should all be fixed now! --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – With all of my comments resolved, I'm comfortable in thinking that this meets the FL criteria, providing that the source-check doesn't reveal any unexpected issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review

As outlined on the FLC page there needs to be a specific source review done so here is my input on the sources

  • Reference 1 - It does not actually give you any info? Considering it is supposed to source 10 statements in the article that's a big problem. Not sure how this was supposed to actually source anything?
  • I'm not sure what more could possible be desired. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When i click on the link i get a map viewer overview page, there is nothing specifically on that page about this subject as far as i can see.  MPJ-US  18:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a map with a search function, zooming options, and various tools for measuring length, elevation, etc. I can add a permalink to the general area, but it's probably not possible to do more. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 2 - Missing info on the publisher (U.S. Department of the Interior) It contains five different page indicators, I would expect them to actually be five different references, tying the page to the facts each page specifically sites?
  • Added publisher, but I don't want to split the reference. It makes things clumsy and hasn't been asked in any other FLCs. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just giving you my opinion, harder to verify when you have so many pages crammef into one. It is quite common on wikipedia to.have different refs for different pages.  MPJ-US  18:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware that it's common, I simply prefer not to use that style. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 3 - Missing info on the publisher, author etc. simply gives us title and date, but there is more information that can be gleaned from the source.
  • Added creator. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 4 - Same as #3, missing information. Too many separate page indicators, really should be page specific references to ensure we can match fact to page
  • Added creator, see #2. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 5 - a zip file? I am not even sure what that is supposed to be for?
  • It's for verifying the content cited to it. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes thank you listing it as a source kinda indicated that. I am not about to download and unzip a file i don't know what it even is. Can you share some info on the content of this?  MPJ-US  18:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list of every geographical feature in Pennsylvania. If it were possible to link to a GNIS query, I'd do that instead, but it's not. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly lacking in the sources, only five but all have some sort of issue. MPJ-US  00:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jakec: reminding you of this. --PresN 17:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakec: reply above.  MPJ-US  18:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MPJ-DK: Jakec responded; not trying to hassle you, but I'd really like to get this nomination closed as it's well past due. --PresN 01:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm just going to go ahead and close this, it's a month past where we usually call it. All of the source review concerns were addressed, and I don't have any myself after looking it over, so closing as passed. --PresN 14:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_tributaries_of_Mahanoy_Creek/archive1&oldid=1076195972"